Sarcastic wrote:mikey and whoever likes stats. What do you think of these numbers? I never know what to think of statistics and I don't think one should rely on them too much. But. Well, there's always a but. Look at this. Voukun . Fleury .

My stance on statistics in hockey goes without saying anymore - you might be able to use them to back up an argument, but not to start one...

Usually when someone puts a link like that and directs me to it (re: anything) I anticipate the worst...I scrolled through that supposed masterpiece and got to the end, shrugged, and said, "that's it? that wasn't bad at all" - so the biggest, most damning argument this stat-mongerer could come up with that Fleury was average? Oh no! Well, I'm sunk...

To be honest, one of the reasons why I hate stats because what I can do with them...I can make Fleury look like crap, sub-NHL crap if I want...I can make Thomas look like crap or a God...it's my choice...that's what bothers me, some two-bit schlub like me and manipulate numbers to say whatever he wants...can you imagine what someone good at statistics could do? Eek...

I don't know, maybe I'm the one that doesn't get it...I just don't know how save percentage became so detached from goals against average all of a sudden...? It's funny, ya know, 10 years ago, 15 years ago (hell, before that when save pct. didn't exist before 1982) people would look at GAA and go, "look here! He gives up goals! He blows..." ...then buzzwords crept into the lexicon of even the average fan (and you see it here constantly) "trap", "left wing lock", etc. and defensive teams start winning and making an imprint on the landscape (1995 Devils, 1996 Panthers, 1999 Stars, 1999 Sabres, 2003 Ducks, 2003 Wild, etc.) so fans want to get to the cutting edge of knowledge, you want to have more insight on the message board, at the bar having a beer, you want to be the guy that knows the score...so it went like this...

Idiot 1: Look at this guy's goals against average he rules!Idiot 2: No, no, no, look at his save percentage, he only stops 9 out of 10 shots...he just wins because he plays behind a defensive system that doesn't allow goalsIdiot 1: Well, yeah, but still...Idiot 2: Any other goalie could do the same job behind that team, they're coached by [insert defensive coach here] and he's always had success with goalies

Goals against average is thrown out...it's obsolete. When do we ever, ever, ever, see evaluation of goaltenders based on GAA any more? No one even looks at it..."it's a team stat"

Save percentage was the only other stat kept for goalies...wins: team; GAA: team; shutouts -> GAA: team (apparently); ...out of options, save percentage is the last gasp of the stat users for goalies. I've always wondered what would happen if save percentage and plus/minus never became official stats...would the world be a better place? Probably. But that's for another time...

I think save percentage probably used to be useful. Back when it was a player's game and player's played their game. I've seen the calculated save percentage numbers from the 1960's - early 80's before (I have them on a hard drive I think from a dead computer, but haven't been successful in getting the info off of it), the same names rise to the top every year. Their backups, generally are far below them (Dryden vs. Laroque, for instance). Save percentage is a depreciating asset...

Today, how often are we seeing stark contrasts between starter and backup? Rarely.

Exceptions? Sure. Always is. But this isn't something that's terribly common before the 1990's it seems...

I hate to use the best of a position and go, "see, told you so!" because it's a stupid way to make a point, but I just want to make a short illustration...Why does Patrick Roy always finish near the top of the league in save pct. no matter where he played (80's-90's Montreal teams that weren't amazing, Avs teams that were) or whatever era he played (firewagon hockey 86-93; so-called dead-puck era 98-03). 9 times he finished top-5 in save pct. And back in the beginning of the career, if you compared Roy's save pct. to his backups (Brian Hayward, Andre Racicot) he probably smacks the crap out of them...as you get later in his career with David Aebischer behind him, the numbers are basically the same...

Now, I don't know about you guys, but I have Patrick Roy as my #2 all-time goalie and my #2 all-time best "money" player ever...I don't have David Aebischer in the league any more...doesn't that seem weird to anyone? Save pct. differential before coaching and the short shift game took over vs. save pct. differential after coaching, short shifts, speed-over-strength game took over.

It seems like save percentage is tied pretty closely to [team] as more and more goalies that can't hang are dismissed. For those that are older, think back to some of the goalies you used to see in the league...Allan Bester, Murray Bannerman, etc. they don't exist anymore. The difference between the top-5 goaltenders in the league, the middle-5 (whatever) and the lower-5 (talking starters here) isn't so much talent - like it used to be - it's the consistency in which they can bring that talent to the forefront. Doesn't it seem odd that Tim Thomas couldn't hack it in this league for years...comes into the league, sucks donkey nards and then gets Chara and Julien and becomes suddenly great? Isn't it odd that Mike Smith was on waivers, re-entry waivers, the whole bit the last couple years and now has like a .930 save pct. and helped his team to the Western Conference Finals...Ilya Bryzgalov is considered an elite goaltender and damn near a Hart candidate on the Phoenix Coyotes, but goes to Philadelphia and absolutes blows minus one month of the season...

No one else but me is finding this odd? Back in the day, bad goalies were bad; good goalies were good basically no matter where they played...Plante was good everywhere, Parent was good everywhere...Bryzgalov isn't good everywhere...Smith isn't good everywhere...Thomas isn't good everywhere...Giguere isn't good everywhere...Khabibulin isn't good everywhere...some are good behind Tippett, some are good behind Julien, some are good behind Babcock or Carlyle...

I'm not saying that Dryden did it all by himself on those 70's Canadiens teams...come on, Larry Robinson, Serge Savard, Guy Lapointe...I'm not trying to fool anyone...but Dryden was much better above his replacement (usually Bunny Laroque) and that's the expectation. You expect elite numbers from Dryden and you got them. You expected Laroque to be sizeably behind him - and he was. That's the exception today, not the rule.

I count the days in seconds and minutes before the consensus finally figures out that the square peg goes in the square hole...right now, the only piece people seem intent on fitting is their round skulls in their a......nevermind.

Soon, the "statistical revolution" will begin, the same one that overthrew goals against average, will rise up, swallow up and spit out save percentage as "just a team stat" and then all the people that are box score watchers and those who don't actually watch the games will wonder where they will go from here..."how will I judge goaltenders now? Because I don't know what I'm looking at on my TV screen... " My only concern is what these people will come up with to replace save pct. when it "goes away"...

Looking at that formula, it's quite obvious why GAA is pretty much ignored these days - a goalie has very little control over how many shots they face in a game. For that reason, there is no logical reason to rank goalies based on a formula in which one of the metrics (shots against) can vary more than 20% (see the Blues vs Hurricanes shots against last season) and is completely outside of the goalie's control. Sv% isn't perfect either, but the variance (shot quality) between teams is much lower and the goalie is at least involved in the play (as opposed to whether or not an opponent is able to generate a shot). Even-strength sv% tells you more as it eliminates one of the strongest determiners of shot quality (EV, PP, or PK shot).

Rylan wrote:I don't get it. If GAA is ignored because of a variance in SV% then why isn't SV% eliminated since shots are out of his control.

If one goalie stops 9 of 10 shots in a game, but another goalie stops 18 of 20 shots who is the better goalie?

I'm not sure exactly what it is you do not get? The variance that makes GAA worth ignoring is the number of shots against, not the sv%. In the scenario you presented, the first goalie would have a 1.00 GAA and the other goalie would have a 2.00 GAA despite producing saves at the exact same rate as the first goalie. Pretty good example though of why GAA doesn't tell you as much about a goalie as their sv%.

- Can't do quote by quote sorry...the heat makes me very lazy...also, I reached the "embedded quote limit" on the board...

- Having a few cases in which goalies perform inordinately well after the age of 35 (Bower, Plante) doesn't really justify the rule that most do not. Brodeur faced more shots because he wasn't sheltered and he stopped them. The eye test shows that he's slowing down from what he was in his prime. I'm not sure I can just brush it aside as "well, he got better in his late 30's" as a reverse justification that he was sheltered a decade before, ya know. That doesn't seem to prove or even suggest anything in my eyes. Especially as someone who has lived in the New Jersey market for so long and seen so, so many of his games...but maybe agree to disagree here, unless you have a counterpoint of course. But I didn't really give you much to work with...

- And again, I wouldn't expect his save percentage to be marvelous. The Devils goal was to prevent shots all together, not allow easy ones. He gives up 2 goals on 18 shots, with a handful of high quality chances in a game, his save pct. will look average. As oppose to a goalie that gets 40 shots and only 2 or 3 or 4 real quality scoring opportunities...even if it's the same basic amount, the latter's save pct. will be higher...he will statistically look better. Saying the Devils had the lowest shots against quality under guys like Robinson and Lemaire is not exactly a breaking story. But unless the expectation was for Marty to give up 1 or less in all those games, I don't see what exactly is being gotten at here...

I'd be curious to know what it would look like if you switched his save pct. to "elite" and see the effect on his GAA. Meaning, take those goals that make his save pct. "average" away...his GAA was ~2.00...you wanted it at 1.75? 1.50? For 75 starts a season?

The hockey analytics stuff is interesting, I've read them before...I'm willing to give them a chance, but I feel they do a better job with skaters than with goalies. I mean, I saw the one from last year, and besides saying that Thomas was a poor one-on-one goalie, he still managed to somehow justify - at times, accentuate, his lofty, obviously "doctored" save pct. ...and you lost me. You and I both know that's total bollocks... I haven't seen this year's, wonder what it says about Fleury...

- No comment really re:Turco vs. Brodeur. I've discussed how not all defensive systems are equal. But as Billy Joel says, "You may be right, I may be crazy..."

- It may have been the first time we got to see what the backups could do, but we didn't see it at the right time...it didn't mean anything then...it doesn't support a claim. The claim: Brodeur was merely (above) average behind the trap all those years (roughly 1995-2004). The proof: In 2009, his backups put up the same numbers as him.

The claim: John Wilkes Booth killed Zachary Taylor in 1850. The proof: John Wilkes Booth killed Abraham Lincoln in 1865.

Also, I wouldn't be so willing to pass off the lack of shutout rate as "ironic anamoly" - I would chalk it up to not being able to pick and choose the crap opponents for the backups to play against and instead forcing them to play all opponents...they sucked and couldn't shut them out. Brodeur could that year because he's better.

- Again, though, he has a few average or even bad first rounds in a row all the while losing 2 HHOF d-men and maybe one more #1 or #2 d-man in the process...keeps the same save pct. and now we're changing the argument to "well, look at the GAA!" His save percentage stayed the same...the argument before seemed very "look at his save pct. is just about average, he can't be good"-ish but then when the trap evaporates and save pct. goes up (regular season) or stays the same (playoffs) it becomes a new ball game? I guess I was very confused by that point, my apologies. Why was 2004 brought onto "this" side of the year split? What effects would 2012 have on those numbers? I'll be honest, that point had a bit of a "cherry-picked" feel to me, with all due respect. But perhaps I didn't fully understand...

- Re: Roy/Aebischer - I'll try to keep the gloves up, but I address this in a more recent post. I'll retreat to my corner.

- Re: Hart. Voters love players coming in and turning a team around. Can't say I blame them. Kings sucked since forever, Kings get Gretzky, Kings get awesome. Fair or unfair. Your point is well taken, but it's justifiable the other way too.

- I'll take a closer look at Hiller. All of a sudden the stats are out the window here though I feel . There's probably a whole mess of goalies you like that the stats don't "support" ...come on, you can tell me, I know...who was it? Brian Finley? Hannu Toivonen? (guilty on that one, right here) Jean-Sebastien Aubin? (better not be) Justin Pogge? What do you got...

- Re: Panthers as division champs. I'll fight dirty from time to time, I'm not a big guy. That Theodore/Clemmer post was at least a hair pull. Ref takes a point away...

Rylan wrote:I don't get it. If GAA is ignored because of a variance in SV% then why isn't SV% eliminated since shots are out of his control.

If one goalie stops 9 of 10 shots in a game, but another goalie stops 18 of 20 shots who is the better goalie?

I'm not sure exactly what it is you do not get? The variance that makes GAA worth ignoring is the number of shots against, not the sv%. In the scenario you presented, the first goalie would have a 1.00 GAA and the other goalie would have a 2.00 GAA despite producing saves at the exact same rate as the first goalie. Pretty good example though of why GAA doesn't tell you as much about a goalie as their sv%.

Right I don't understand how SV% is an important factor when shots against are variable. If a goalie A and goalie B stop 90% how can you actually be capable of separating the goalies without having to go into a much deeper stat analysis.

If I had told you that goalie A had allowed one goal while goalie B allowed 2 goals, which goalie is having the better game? You would ask how many saves he made right? Well what does that matter? If goalie A only allows one goal he is the better goalie that night.

Or what if I had said Goalie B had stopped 4 breakaways and the two goals that were allowed were cross ice passes that no living human will stop. But goalie A allowed a fluke from the blue line while the rest of his shots were from outside the slot. Which goalie is having the better night?

In the end, all I want to do is prove that stats are subjective and that using them to prove any point about a goalie's play is ridiculous. The amount of shots stopped is not important as goals allowed. But even they are not fair comparisons when the team in front allows a variety of problems. Goalies are one of the few positions that are truly more involved with the eye test than any stat could ever paint. But, if I had to chose an important stat GAA would be the one I am more inclined to believe than SV%.

Looking at that formula, it's quite obvious why GAA is pretty much ignored these days - a goalie has very little control over how many shots they face in a game. For that reason, there is no logical reason to rank goalies based on a formula in which one of the metrics (shots against) can vary more than 20% (see the Blues vs Hurricanes shots against last season) and is completely outside of the goalie's control. Sv% isn't perfect either, but the variance (shot quality) between teams is much lower and the goalie is at least involved in the play (as opposed to whether or not an opponent is able to generate a shot). Even-strength sv% tells you more as it eliminates one of the strongest determiners of shot quality (EV, PP, or PK shot).

This is just my opinion but i always felt shots against is a better barometer of how good of a defenisve squad (forwards and defencemen) is in front of that goalie. So no its not a tell tale sign of a goalie performance, but it does go to show you the team that allowed 10 shots in that game plays a better system thusly helping a goalie.

There is no way of telling who is the better goalie from a goalie who see 10 shots and one who see 20, but you can determin that the guy who saw 10 shots gets more help from his unit in front of him.

- Can't do quote by quote sorry...the heat makes me very lazy...also, I reached the "embedded quote limit" on the board...

- Having a few cases in which goalies perform inordinately well after the age of 35 (Bower, Plante) doesn't really justify the rule that most do not. Brodeur faced more shots because he wasn't sheltered and he stopped them. The eye test shows that he's slowing down from what he was in his prime. I'm not sure I can just brush it aside as "well, he got better in his late 30's" as a reverse justification that he was sheltered a decade before, ya know. That doesn't seem to prove or even suggest anything in my eyes. Especially as someone who has lived in the New Jersey market for so long and seen so, so many of his games...but maybe agree to disagree here, unless you have a counterpoint of course. But I didn't really give you much to work with...

- And again, I wouldn't expect his save percentage to be marvelous. The Devils goal was to prevent shots all together, not allow easy ones. He gives up 2 goals on 18 shots, with a handful of high quality chances in a game, his save pct. will look average. As oppose to a goalie that gets 40 shots and only 2 or 3 or 4 real quality scoring opportunities...even if it's the same basic amount, the latter's save pct. will be higher...he will statistically look better. Saying the Devils had the lowest shots against quality under guys like Robinson and Lemaire is not exactly a breaking story. But unless the expectation was for Marty to give up 1 or less in all those games, I don't see what exactly is being gotten at here...

I'd be curious to know what it would look like if you switched his save pct. to "elite" and see the effect on his GAA. Meaning, take those goals that make his save pct. "average" away...his GAA was ~2.00...you wanted it at 1.75? 1.50? For 75 starts a season?

The hockey analytics stuff is interesting, I've read them before...I'm willing to give them a chance, but I feel they do a better job with skaters than with goalies. I mean, I saw the one from last year, and besides saying that Thomas was a poor one-on-one goalie, he still managed to somehow justify - at times, accentuate, his lofty, obviously "doctored" save pct. ...and you lost me. You and I both know that's total bollocks... I haven't seen this year's, wonder what it says about Fleury...

- No comment really re:Turco vs. Brodeur. I've discussed how not all defensive systems are equal. But as Billy Joel says, "You may be right, I may be crazy..."

- It may have been the first time we got to see what the backups could do, but we didn't see it at the right time...it didn't mean anything then...it doesn't support a claim. The claim: Brodeur was merely (above) average behind the trap all those years (roughly 1995-2004). The proof: In 2009, his backups put up the same numbers as him.

The claim: John Wilkes Booth killed Zachary Taylor in 1850. The proof: John Wilkes Booth killed Abraham Lincoln in 1865.

Also, I wouldn't be so willing to pass off the lack of shutout rate as "ironic anamoly" - I would chalk it up to not being able to pick and choose the crap opponents for the backups to play against and instead forcing them to play all opponents...they sucked and couldn't shut them out. Brodeur could that year because he's better.

- Again, though, he has a few average or even bad first rounds in a row all the while losing 2 HHOF d-men and maybe one more #1 or #2 d-man in the process...keeps the same save pct. and now we're changing the argument to "well, look at the GAA!" His save percentage stayed the same...the argument before seemed very "look at his save pct. is just about average, he can't be good"-ish but then when the trap evaporates and save pct. goes up (regular season) or stays the same (playoffs) it becomes a new ball game? I guess I was very confused by that point, my apologies. Why was 2004 brought onto "this" side of the year split? What effects would 2012 have on those numbers? I'll be honest, that point had a bit of a "cherry-picked" feel to me, with all due respect. But perhaps I didn't fully understand...

- Re: Roy/Aebischer - I'll try to keep the gloves up, but I address this in a more recent post. I'll retreat to my corner.

- Re: Hart. Voters love players coming in and turning a team around. Can't say I blame them. Kings sucked since forever, Kings get Gretzky, Kings get awesome. Fair or unfair. Your point is well taken, but it's justifiable the other way too.

- I'll take a closer look at Hiller. All of a sudden the stats are out the window here though I feel . There's probably a whole mess of goalies you like that the stats don't "support" ...come on, you can tell me, I know...who was it? Brian Finley? Hannu Toivonen? (guilty on that one, right here) Jean-Sebastien Aubin? (better not be) Justin Pogge? What do you got...

- Re: Panthers as division champs. I'll fight dirty from time to time, I'm not a big guy. That Theodore/Clemmer post was at least a hair pull. Ref takes a point away...

Question if I may ... how long does it take you to type one of these manifestos? What is your words per minute?

no name wrote:This is just my opinion but i always felt shots against is a better barometer of how good of a defenisve squad (forwards and defencemen) is in front of that goalie. So no its not a tell tale sign of a goalie performance, but it does go to show you the team that allowed 10 shots in that game plays a better system thusly helping a goalie.

There is no way of telling who is the better goalie from a goalie who see 10 shots and one who see 20, but you can determin that the guy who saw 10 shots gets more help from his unit in front of him.

The point is, with goalies, stats are a weak barometer to establish the merits of a goalie. Every save is equal in stats. Whether it be a weak wrister from the blue line or a breakaway against Datsyuk. Would a person consider the weak shot to be equal to a breakaway? No. But in Statland they are the same.

Conclusion: Goalies are to be compared by what they do via the eye test and not by the numbers they put up because the numbers are not entirely a truth.

Rylan wrote:Conclusion: Goalies are to be compared by what they do via the eye test and not by the numbers they put up because the numbers are not entirely a truth.

To me, it seems easy to observe whether a goalie is playing great, mediocre, or poor just by watching, including discerning a goalie playing great while still yielding multiple goals due to poor team defense. However, to those wearing Fleury jerseys, there are just two visual categories: (1) Fleury playing great, or (2) Fleury being "hung out to dry" by the team defense. And so, we resort to statistics to try to categorize his play.

DelPen wrote:Seems people are forgetting about this move since it happened before the season was even really over.

If Shero signs Vokoun on July 1 it's bigger news maybe.

I haven't forgotten. It was was an excellent signing of an excellent goalie. What is more under the radar, and rightfully so, is signing Jeff Zatkoff to the WBS team. If Fleury or Vokoun get injured, I have way more faith in Zatkoff than anyone else in our system. He has played very well at every level of hockey so far and is not far off from an NHL backup position and possibly a starter someday. He's good.

DelPen wrote:Seems people are forgetting about this move since it happened before the season was even really over.

If Shero signs Vokoun on July 1 it's bigger news maybe.

I haven't forgotten. It was was an excellent signing of an excellent goalie. What is more under the radar, and rightfully so, is signing Jeff Zatkoff to the WBS team. If Fleury or Vokoun get injured, I have way more faith in Zatkoff than anyone else in our system. He has played very well at every level of hockey so far and is not far off from an NHL backup position and possibly a starter someday. He's good.

Couldn't agree more. Zatkoff is legitimate depth for the Pens. I've had people telling me the last few seasons that Zatkoff was at, or near, "NHL ready" but wasn't going to get a chance being buried behind Quick & Bernier.

Those two signings (Vokoun + Zatkoff) have really turned a weakness from last season into a strength for the next few, at the very least.

Last edited by tfrizz on Wed Aug 08, 2012 11:43 am, edited 2 times in total.

If you have to tell someone you're being sarcastic, you aren't doing it right. Actually if you feel like someone should know that you're being sarcastic, you aren't doing it right. So much better when it goes over someone's head.

DelPen wrote:Seems people are forgetting about this move since it happened before the season was even really over.

If Shero signs Vokoun on July 1 it's bigger news maybe.

I haven't forgotten. It was was an excellent signing of an excellent goalie. What is more under the radar, and rightfully so, is signing Jeff Zatkoff to the WBS team. If Fleury or Vokoun get injured, I have way more faith in Zatkoff than anyone else in our system. He has played very well at every level of hockey so far and is not far off from an NHL backup position and possibly a starter someday. He's good.

I still think the Vokoun move is LARGELY underestimated. We lost Michalek and have not moved Martin, so many think we are worse off on D. I think people don't realize how much Fleury really made our D look far better than it was the entire season. Having a Fleury that will be fresh, not over-worked and a tandem with a goalie that could be a #1 on some teams? That's HUGE. I'm sure I've uttered these thoughts throughout this thread already, but I think it just bears repeating.

I'm not trying to sound overzealous, but if the Penguins win the cup this year, this is a trade that will make Shero look like a genius when people look back on it years from now.